DreadDomain

As soltakss say. It's fairly easy to do. The question is how are character created? Are you creating characters on a point budget? If so buying Alternate Form is probably the way to go. However, BRP is not strickly a point buy system and usually people will pick a race/culture/profession and get whatever comes with it. You when a werewolf? Pick the werewolf template, roll your characteristics (or assign them on a budget) take the traits that come with it (positive and negative) and skills and so on. Something in the template doesn't fit your vision? A gm/player discussion resolves it. Immortality/slow aging is a good example of this. You can assign a mechanic to it, as per the examples quoted, or you can had the trait "immortal" or "slow aging" on the sheet. Should it cost something? Maybe, probably not. If everyone is immortal in the group, it becomes a campaign dial more than anything else. Of the 2012 edition? Even my fresh PDF from 2020 tells me the BGB was published in May 2008. Was there another edition that I missed?

...and will it free up Jeff to work on other (RQ related) things?

Good summary Trotsky. But wait... Isn't supposed to be at SR1 plus extra MP expenditure as normal? A 10 MP spell would go off at SR 10 right? On p.366 under Combattants, it says that "spells cast by a spirit, go off on strike rank 1" so if by reading this sentence I could understand that spells go off on strike rank one irrespective of the number of magic point but I would also understand that it applies to spirit only (not discorporate being). Personally I simply interpreted it in its looser form of "spirit cast spirit spells normally on SR 1 (plus MP-1) and spirit combat takes place on SR 12" It's a bit of a bizarre quirk that by attacking with a weapon, you effectively make the quick contest happen earlier in the turn... ... and that by splitting your attack you make the spirit attack you more often. I supposed it it rationalisable because by engaging with "physical actions" changes the pace and frequency of the "spiritual contact" (I am probably over thinking this). Also, don't split your attack unless your skill is in the range of 3 times the spirit skill. And now I may see and example where you might need to use both your weapon skill and your spirit combat skill. You are engaged with 2 spirits. On SR 7, you attack one with your magically enhanced sword. Normal quick contest ensues. That quick contest resolves the attack spirit 1 initiated in SR 12. However, come SR 12, spirit 2 attacks. Normal quick contest take place. Can I use my sword skill to defend? It's not a normal attack. But maybe it is because, if I win the quick contest, I inflict damage. In that case, I do not have enough SR to engage in the contest with my sword and I need to revert back to my Spirit Combat skill. So, do we all agree that in this case the only option is to use Spirit Combat skill for the second contest?

But even then, in a quick contest, you are most likely worse off if you split your attack. Imagine I have 200% in Sword against a spirit with 100% in spirit combat. If I do not split, the sprit takes -100% on his skill so he has 5% of succeeding and 95% chance of failing. I have 95% chance of succeeding and 5% chance of failing. Odds are I will win and inflict my damage every turn. If I split, I attack twice at 100% vs the spirit 100% who, by the artefact of the quick contest, will also attack me twice. Chances are we will tie quite often and when we don't, on average, the spirit will inflict its spirit damage to me as often as I inflict my damage to him. Not a good trade. Unless you get close to 300% in your weapon skill... In this example, aren't you supposed to use your sword skill to attack the spirit? In which case would you use Spirit Combat?

I read that statement and it made me believe one could not split their attack (weapon skill over 100%) but you confirmed later that it is doable. Since attacking twice means splitting your skill and spirit combat is a quick contest, wouldn't it dramatically reduce your chance of succeeding and giving the spirit a second chance to damage you. Of course the same can be said about physical but I have a feeling that the quick contest of it really exacerbate the issue and makes splitting your attack a very bad idea. I need to think a bit more about it.

From a year ago... Could it relate to the fantastic map Jeff has been previewing for a couple of weeks now? I suspect not but if it is the case, the Starter Kit will be something to behold!!!

I would argue that BRP is at least as well known as Fudge but your point stands, GURPS, HERO, Savage Worlds, FATE and maybe a few others are better known as far as generic systems go and not all of them are doing that well anyway (HERO is more or less inactive at this stage). However, I believe BRP is well known for being the engine behind Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, Stormbringer, etc... I would offer that no other generic systems has powered so many popular games. A KS would need to draw on these big names to raise its profile (and throw in Pendragon for good measure) Good observation but the Open License cannot do it alone. It's a chicken an egg thing. Fan projects are created when there is already a strong support from an organization and good supports from customers. Also, many conversations on these boards seem to indicate the OGL is not user friendly enough both in how the conditions are framed and the amount of material that is being offered in the SRD. True. Chaosium has limited resources and I would expect them to focus them where the revenue stream comes from. I suspect the priorities would be Call of Cthulhu, RuneQuest, 7th Seas, Pendragon, BRP, QuestWorlds in that order (I have no inside knowledge, this is just me guessing). The good news is that Chaosium has already committed to a few BRP games ("committed" might be a bit strong) and we also heard about other potential games (Rivers of London, Lords of the Middle Sea, Mythic Iceland, also rumored Superworld). There is hope! I guess the real issue here is that Chaosium prefers to publish complete games and are not too keen on generic systems (or so I remember reading) so I suspect both BRP and QW SRDs are their way of putting their systems out there and that a BRP Core book is not even considered at this stage.

Same for me. I like the idea of Cortex but I would only play it for supers. Again, same for me except that it is probably due to having mostly played GURPS, HERO and BRP for decades Same here, I am not generally enthused by stats and skills as dice or funky dice systems. BRP core is just too simple for me but once you tack on a full options, it gives the right level of texture. Let's hope and see but I assume he is quite busy with RQ.

Yes, I understand what you are after and I would support an updated BRP Core. I like the BGB and I like it uses some assumptions as a base and then throw in loads of options to change it. That's what BRP is to me. By the way, a core book for a generic systems full of options is doable. Cortex Prime is now on my shelves and it's gorgeous. BRP is a simpler system and generally, a character sheet from any/most of BRP variants is still recognisable as BRP. Not the case for Cortex. I was actually replying to this: Although it is not a physical booklet, I think the SRD covers the same ground.

It's probably just a shortcut to something that is perceived to be easier (it isn't). Personally I prefer a tie to be a tie when it makes sense or highest roll to win when a ties doesn't make sense. Different question, have we seen any pick up on the SRD? I am only aware of Toxandria so far. Is the number of release (potentially just 1) after 8-9 months commensurate with expectations? If not, why is that? What are the roadblocks that need to be cleared by Chaosium. Maybe the answer is that nobody is interested in BRP. I would be extremely surprised by this (and would make me sad). Miskatonic and Jonstown had both quite a good pick-up.

Isn't it more or less what this is?

@Jeff, in another thread that went way off topic, I said: "I generally don't watch people gaming but this series I enjoy. I like the characters and how the players portray them, I like the pictures of each characters (very evocative) and I like that the story is tied to current events and to specific locations. The maps and pictures that Jeff flashes once in a while are very useful." Your games is obviously drawing heavily on past publications on Pavis and the Big Rubble. I was wondering what are your main source for your game? Classic "Pavis", "The Big Rubble" and "Borderlands"? The Glorantha Classics "Pavis and the Big Rubble" and "Borderlands and Beyond"? HeroQuest "Pavis: Gateway to Adventures"? A combination?

Me too. I generally don't watch people gaming but this series I enjoy. I like the characters and how the players portray them, I like the pictures of each characters (very evocative) and I like that the story is tied to current events and to specific locations. The maps and pictures that Jeff flashes once in a while are very useful. But isn't it more a playstyle than of the group rather than a fault of the rules? That is were I would have seen the rules in action. Pendragonize it!

Thanks, thats very helpful. Of this list only Trollpak inteterests me really (but I may be missing a SoloQuest so I may also go for it). That is another point, I believe the Glorantha Classics look nicer. And that is also a reason to wait to buy them until I really need them. I have been looking hard for a reason to buy them now while they are discounted but alas, can't find any good reasons... Thanks for the help.

Oops, my bad. Yeah, ease of handling doesn't really cut it. For the covers, Pavis, Lord of Terror, and maybe Griffin Mountain and Big Rubble could draw me in. Not the rest though.

😄 It is in fact the reason why I am considering Trollpak (I have the box from RQ3 and the separate supplements) but for the one listed above, I am not sure what justification I have to spend $150 since I already have the excellent Glorantha Classics.

It was probably asked before but for someone who has the Glorantha Classics on his shelves, is there any reasons to buy these books (aside from completionism)?

I would not expect any group to attempt a large fight in a system they are not really familiar with so it is probably wise of you to avoid them for now. By the way, both of my examples above were not with RQ. I was curious to see how Jeff would manage the fight with the skeletons and to showcase RQG in large fights. I haven't watched it yet but if the fight is handwaved as suggested above, well, that won't showcase much of the system. That's a very interesting way of doing it. As a GM I would generally not roll anything for a NPC vs NPC fight or I would "Pendragon" it by rolling opposed rolls and assigning results using the Pendragon philosophy. By the way, RQ/BRP has been giving us many ways to run combats and I prefer to run RQ by using them all given the specific situation. Want to run a more narrative or quicker fight? Pendragonize it. Rounds duration is elastic, no initiative is needed, use oppose rolls (for same level of success, lower roll wins), assign results inspired by KAP and resolve damage as per RQ. On a tie (same level of success, same number rolled on d100), the weapon with the smaller AP breaks). Want to run a combat with many participants or do not want to worry too much with a lot of tactical detail? Secondize it*. Rounds duration is elastic, strike ranks are mostly an initiative mechanism. Use RQG as is. Want to run a duel or a combat where the focus will be on tactics? Thirdize it*. Rounds duration are 12 seconds, strike ranks are a action point mechanism. Weave melee movement into the SR but also, do not limit the number of actions in a SR. You have enough SR to attack again, go for it. Multiple defenses is as per RQG, aimed blow is at 1/2 skill but is not delayed at the end of the turn. My point is all three methods (and I am sure others like the one offered by Trotsky) can be used in the same game with the same characters. It is not unlike in QW where you decide if this contest should be run as a simple or as an extended contest. * I really need better names for these two. In the 90s when we were exploring various rule sets, we often weaved a lot of RuneQuest elements into them (a process we called RuneQuestizing a game) until we dropped them and returned to RQ3.

I would hardly call a fight against a dozen opponent "mass combat" but hey, if this is too much for your group, that is totally cool. Our group could run many sessions focused on roleplaying with minimum combat and then have a session where combat was the highlight.

It's probably a byproduct of the main designers having the rules so internalised that it is sometimes difficult to see blindspots that others my have or even recognising that a sentence might not convey the message you want to convey because you know what it means. In the last few years we saw a few "How does this works?", "it works like this", "wait, it is not what this sentence says", "this sentence is perfectly clear to us". Anyway, digressing now...

(Sorry... missed that quote in my previous post and couldn't add it) ahh man, I am disappointed. I stopped right before that fight because I didn't have time to watch it in one go. I was really looking forward to see a large fight in action. Some of the most epic fights we had were against a large number of beast men and another against a large number of undead and both times we used a map to play it out (generally we don't use a grid). Both fights were full of tactical decisions (good and bad), spectacular dice rolls (good and bad) and the one against beast men was specifically dramatic where at some point all seemed lost but the group snatched victory from the jaws of defeat. I was hoping to see something similar.

Good one. Will add to my list of house rules. This is also my experience. For many, many years I have played games (GURPS, HERO) where we didn't need to house rule much (if at all). Not that we didn't try, this and that but in the end, the rules as is were geling well and were covering all the bases one way or another so the need to bolt on stuff was minimal. RQG is a different beast. It seems like it brings the rules to an awkward level of crunch. They are crunchy enough to feel very detailed but It feels like there is half a step missing in the development of the rules. The house rule you suggest is a good example. Shield rules are generally good but they make some people go "hmmm. surely I could do this with a shield..." or "surely a larger shield will be heavier and sturdier but will make blocking easier compared to a smaller shield..." or "surely a wooden shield should be sturdier than a hide shield". There are also obvious blind spots. Weapon reach is an important aspect of combat and longer weapons have an advantage over shorter weapons. Yet, RQG offers no mechanism for slipping inside the reach of another weapon. Would it be a difficult rule to add (house rule of official)? Clearly not, such rules exist in various BRP and RQ games. This half step not taken makes tinkerers want to add it back in. Especially if they have a lot of GURPS under their belt . Conversally, I suspect some people will want to make that half a step back by ignoring some of the crunch Yes, this.

I believe you are correct.

The Well of Daliath clarifies the second printing correction: Two Weapon Use (page 224) First bullet changed to “…may use them for two attacks or attacking with one and parrying with the other, as desired.” (Part of Second printing corrections). Please note that this has been superseded below. With two weapons, one in each hand you can attack with both (subject to strike ranks), and parry with both (though only 1 parry allowed per attack) and subsequent parries (in a combat round) are subject to the -20% cumulative penalty, regardless of which weapon is used to parry.

These three professions now make a lot more sense. Hopefully it will also be updated in the next printing in English.